Impact of Regulation of Railways Act (RoRA) prosecution on a career as a nurse

[Elecman]

I am absolutely beside myself as I am a single mother and a qualified nurse and I stand to lose everything, can anybody advise please ?

She will be struck off the NMC register for a RORA offence criminal conviction as it brings the profession into disrepute as it is a fraud type offence. This is as advised to me by a senior registered nurse.

Mods' note: this thread has been split from Asked for a ticket from Bridgend, when I had actually travelled from Pyle

 

[najaB]

She will be...

"Will be" or "may be"? It's a genuine question, I'm surprised that it is so black and white.

 

[Elecman]

Their view is any financial offence conviction makes your continuing registration as a nurse impossible.

 

[SussexMan]

She will be struck off the NMC register for a RORA offence criminal conviction as it brings the profession into disrepute as it is a fraud type offence. This is as advised to me by a senior registered nurse.

Their view is any financial offence conviction makes your continuing registration as a nurse impossible.

So is your statement of fact actually word of mouth from another nurse who has no connection with the NMC other than being registered with them herself? I think we'd have a lot fewer nurses and midwives if this were the actual case.

As you have quoted it as fact, I would suggest, for the benefit of the OP and not to make things even more alarming for them, that you provide something to back up your statement.

 

[yorkie]

Elecman - I think we would need some good sources to be sure of that. Can you supply any? Whether this is a " financial offence conviction" and/or "a fraud type offence" as stated above, I do not know.

The question over whether a successful RoRA prosecution would ruin a nurse's career cropped up before and we were unable to reach a consensus.

There is some information at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_transport_offences/ but I am unsure how to interpret this.

Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (Stones 7-7043) is usually used for offences of fare evasion on the railways for:

• travelling/attempting to travel on a railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
• having paid the fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeding by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance and with intent to avoid payment thereof or
• having failed to pay the fare, giving in reply to a request from an officer of a railway company a false name and address.

Section 103(a) Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (Stones 7-7001) covers a person refusing to quit a carriage on arrival at the point to which he has paid his fare.

Both section 5 and section 103(a) are summary only offences. "Intent to avoid payment" in section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due

Does anyone have a copy of the relevant documentation stating what type of offences would or could lead to a nurse being struck off?

 

[Elecman]

See section 10.4 of the NMC CoP also section 10 of the guidance from the NMC on fitness to practise

 

[DaleCooper]

See section 10.4 of the NMC CoP also section 10 of the guidance from the NMC on fitness to practise

Can you provide a link please?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is the only 10.4 I can find (CoP effective 31-5-2015)

10.4
attribute any entries you make in any paper or electronic
records to yourself, making sure they are clearly written,
dated and timed, and do not include unnecessary
abbreviations, jargon or speculation

 

[6Gman]

Can you provide a link please?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is the only 10.4 I can find (CoP effective 31-5-2015)

I think the reference in 10.4 is to professional record keeping, not to dealings with organisations in your private life.

My gut feeling is that the NMC is unlikely to strike anyone off over a £2 short-faring!

 

[Camden]

Given the wild and wacky ways that some on these forums interpret the Conditions of Carriage for various purposes, I think it requires something a little more concrete than someone on here pointing at a rule to conclude such a drastic outcome as being struck off. My gut instinct tells me that dodging a fare would not result in being struck off, which I think would be totally out of proportion to the offence.

 

[yorkie]

it's 20.4

20 Uphold the reputation of your profession at all times
To achieve this, you must:
20.4 keep to the laws of the country in which you are practising

I'm still not convinced someone would be struck off for this, but I really do not know either way!

 

[najaB]

I'm still not convinced someone would be struck off for this, but I really do not know either way!

Neither am I, if for no other reason than the fact that being struck off is the most severe sanction available and the NMC's website has examples of actual medical mistakes/issues that have resulted in a lesser penalty!

 

[34D]

Would it be appropriate for someone on the forum in authority to email the NMC with a detailed question, setting out the scenario and background?

As I said on the other thread, if someone is being investigated by a railway company, and potentially facing sanctions from their professional organisation, I recommend they consult a soicitor who specialised in criminal defence work.

There is useful advice contained in this forums FAQ also.

 

[DaleCooper]

it's 20.4

I'm still not convinced someone would be struck off for this, but I really do not know either way!

20 Uphold the reputation of your profession at all times
To achieve this, you must:
20.4 keep to the laws of the country in which you are practising

If this were to be applied literally and without regard to context then a nurse could be struck off for exceeding the speed limit. Obviously that is not the intended purpose of that clause and there will be a range of sanctions available according to the severity of the offence..

Their view is any financial offence conviction makes your continuing registration as a nurse impossible.

Elecman needs to be a bit more circumspect before making a such a potentially distressing statement.

 

[6Gman]

A quick search on NMC cases reveals:

A Care Home Manager who stole £400 of residents' money received a 4 month suspension. Given the scale, that it related directly to her nursing and took place over a protracted period if that doesn't get you struck off then I doubt that a single £2 fare issue would.

A Scottish nurse was struck off for benefit fraud. Mind, it was £9,000 and she'd had a previous suspension for medical malpractice!

There is a comment that striking off is for behaviour "fundamentally incompatible" with nursing. I know the RoRA is important, but ......

 

[DaleCooper]

As far as I'm concerned Elecman's opinion has been shown to have no merit and may even be vexatious.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I suspect bearing in mind the value of the fare involved, if this is a first offence, the NMC may just send a warning (if they bother at all)

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Whether or not this would come up in an enhanced DBS check I don't know but I think it would be better for the OP to declare this as and when required (I have to have an enhanced DBS check every 3 years). Failure to declare might pose a problem, especially if the OP ever applies for another nursing post (honesty/integrity issues etc)

 

[Greenback]

As someone with experience in this area, I can categorically state that it's about as unlikely that a nurse will be struck off the NMC register for an offence of this nature as it is that I will be playing at outside half in the Rugby Union World Cup final this year.

I can't post any sources to support my assertion, sorry, but it's a fact nonetheless.

 

[Stigy]

I suspect bearing in mind the value of the fare involved, if this is a first offence, the NMC may just send a warning (if they bother at all)

The value of the fare involved is irrelevant and won't be listed specifically on any records readily available to be checked for employment purposes be it £2 or £200. However, on the PNC records it'll state the source of the offence, so being a private prosecution it'll state the TOC involved.

Don't know for sure, but I guess it depends on each individual case as to a Nurse's fitness to practice much the same with the Police, although Police vetting processes are more stringent in that ACPO delve in to your private life on a more 'intimate' level by way of asking about family members and specific financial matters. They will use the PNC and also carry out financial checks with the FSA.

Again not 100% here, but I believe the NHS vet their staff simply by using the DBS on an advanced level (Disclosure & Barring Service - Formally CRB). From experience, even advanced DBS checks are limited as to what recorded convictions they show. Regarding Police vetting, I know again from experience that for an offence such as this, it's arguably more serious not to disclose it and risk being found out, than it is to disclose it regardless and explain the circumstances surrounding the conviction, because not disclosing an offence would then be turned in to an integrity issue on the applicant's part.

 

[Greenback]

You are correct, stigy, the NHS uses Enhanced DBS checks for nursing staff.

 

[tony_mac]

I had a look around for cases.
It seems that striking-off is generally for more serious cases. It certainly isn't guaranteed, even for stealing drugs, or a PCOJ conviction, which I think are both rather more worrying than a rail ticketing irregularity.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The NMC isn't as militant as some regulators, but even so it's difficult to give an exact answer. It all depends on context. Someone who was prosecuted for this kind of offence, lied about it to their employers, didn't inform the NMC and didn't show any remorse or insight into their actions may well be struck off. Someone who was upfront and honest about may simply get a caution against their name for a period of time (or the NMC may simply not hear the fitness to practice case). There are a few important points though. Professional regulators work to the civil standard of proof, and they are not bound by their previous decisions as precedent.

 

[Greenback]

I agree that failure to inform your employer, or the NMC, of a criminal conviction may be dealt with more harshly than someone who did report an identical conviction, but in my experience, convictions of this nature are pretty much disregarded unless there is a history of dishonesty evidenced by several convictions for similar offences. Deliberately lying about a conviction is worse again.

Rightly or wrongly, parking offences, traffic violations, failure to pay fines and rail fare convictions are usually considered trivial when they occur in isolation, and where the individual has been honest about it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

See section 10.4 of the NMC CoP also section 10 of the guidance from the NMC on fitness to practise

Being struck off is a sanction for misconduct, and a RoRA conviction would be misconduct. Jumping from that to saying that someone will be struck off for short-faring is a step too far.

The NMC may choose to sanction someone for short-faring, and they may choose to impose the maximum sanction, but none of that is inevitable.

When deciding as to someone's fitness to practice the NMC will usually take into account the severity of the offence, the professional insight of the nurse, the remorse (or otherwise) of the nurse, the transparency of their declarations and any other relevant factors.

I would be astounded if the NMC decided to strike someone off for this unless they have a history of serious professional misconduct.

Where I've worked on fitness for practice cases (with student nurses) I've only seen them be found unfit where they have shown no professional insight or remorse, they have lied or the behaviour has been extremely serious and involved physical or verbal abuse or an abuse of trust.

 

[Greenback]

I agree completely with everything that Arctic Troll has posted.